[cladopa]

The great thing about C is that is was not designed by a committee at all. It was designed by a person with strong opinions. This means it is really great for what it does well(what the author was interested in).

To illustrate the difference look at C++, it was designed by a person with strong opinions, but then left it to be controlled by a committee.

If you look at the structure of C++ in Backus Naur form it is absolutely nuts. The compile times have gone through the roof and people leave to create new languages like jai, Zig or whatever.

Common Lisp was designed by committee. It is as chaotic as C++.

Rust is also gigantic. I am very careful not to use in critical systems because it is so big unless we could restrict it with the compiler or something.

[aw1621107]

> To illustrate the difference look at C++, it was designed by a person with strong opinions, but then left it to be controlled by a committee.

This comparison confuses me because C is... also controlled by a committee? The evolution of the C standard is under the control of ISO WG14 [0], much like how the C++ standard is under the control of ISO WG21 [1]. This was true for even the first versions of each language that was standardized.

[0]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/

[1]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/

[vlovich123]

For what it’s worth rust was also designed by a person with strong opinions. It’s devolved to an organization but that’s inevitable in terms of long term sustainability.

You can always use no-std if you so choose where the language is about the size of C (but still has better utility) although if you’re complaining about the size of the language, c++ is drastically worse in my opinion. Rust starting to work its way into the Linux kernel should be a signal that the language is better suited for paring down than c++